[snip] >That reminds me ... we could really use a tracker category for >"usability" to distinguish it from "UI" (ie to make "UI" specific to >functional defects of the UI).
Great idea! :) [snip] > > Moreover, many workflows are >> built around second or third grade programmes. OTOH, these facts provide >> the time for FOSS to mature and finally offer viable and reliable >> alternatives, based on user feedback. > >Yep, now that is an interesting area. Making a superior workflow >possible. The first example that springs to my mind is the fact that at >least for Q4 on Mac OS 9, when we were having corruption, performance, >and relibailibty issues with Quark working on files on our file server, >Quark recommended to me that we simply not use a network. And, related to those issues, Quark still asks for the same with 6.5. Although we do work *all the time* over the network (files are located on the file server), we've had some issues, from time to time, and were kindly *encouraged* not to work like that. Nonetheless we still work *all the time* over the network (do we have a choice?!). That said, we do have lots of issues with Suitcase font server and this is a pain. So, network usability could be improved a lot. All related to Scribus, if we could come up with a solution that would include a font server, we'd be getting closer to heavy production capabilities. >An app that is safe on network file systems is thus very, very >interesting. Right! Louis >Craig Ringer
